Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rae (US 20170176578 A1).
Claim 1: Rae teaches a distance measuring device comprising:
a light emitting unit (Fig. 1, emitting unit 10);
a light receiving unit in which a plurality of light receiving elements that receives reflected light is two- dimensionally arranged (Fig 1, CAPT 18 and Fig. 3 - SPAD array),
the reflected light being light of the light emitting unit that has been reflected ([0033]);
and a control unit that performs control to read a detection signal from each of a predetermined number of the light receiving elements among the plurality of light receiving elements and measure a distance ([0034]),
wherein the control unit detects abnormality of the light emitting unit, on a basis of a calculated value calculated on a basis of the detection signals of the predetermined number of the light receiving elements ([0105]-[0107]).
Claim 2: Rae teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit generates a histogram of the calculated values, and detects abnormality of the light emitting unit on a basis of the histogram ([0059] - histogram, [0107] and Figs. 12 and 13).
Claim 6: Rae teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the calculated value includes a pixel value obtained by aggregating the number of the detection signals output from the light receiving unit for each of a plurality of light receiving elements ([0042] - grouping SPADs).
Claim 7: Rae teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving element includes a SPAD pixel ([0037]).
Claim 9: Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to Claim 1. Thus, see rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rae (US 20170176578 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100220927 A1).
Claim 3: Rae teaches the distance measuring device according to Claim 2. Rae does not teach, but Kim does teach, wherein the control unit detects abnormality of the light emitting unit in a case where a plurality of peaks included in the histogram includes a peak at which the calculated value and a peak width satisfy a predetermined condition (Kim [0019]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the histogram analyzing method, as taught by Kim, in the device as taught by Rae because different methods of analyzing a histogram (including Kim’s method) are well-known in the art and would yield predictable results (as they are simply implementations of mathematical models).
Claim 4: Rae, as modified in view of Kim, teaches the distance measuring device according to claim 3. Rae, as modified in view of Kim, does not teach, but Kim does teach wherein the control unit detects abnormality of the light emitting unit in a case where a peak at which the calculated value is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold and the peak width is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold is included (Kim [0019]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the histogram analyzing method, as taught by Kim, in the device as taught by Rae, as modified in view of Kim, because different methods of analyzing a histogram (including Kim’s method) are well-known in the art and would yield predictable results (as they are simply implementations of mathematical models).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rae (US 20170176578 A1) in view of Kim (US 20100220927 A1), further in view of McWhirter (US 20180284268A1).
Claim 5: Rae, as modified in view of Kim, teaches the distance measuring device according to Claim 4. Rae, as modified in view of Kim, does not teach, but McWhirter does teach wherein the threshold of the peak width includes a value corresponding to a pulse width of light of the light emitting unit (McWhirter [0138] – specifically setting a threshold based on pulse width).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the threshold set based on pulse width, as taught by McWhirter, with the device as taught by Rae, as modified in view of Kim, because different methods of setting a threshold (such as that taught by McWhirter based on pulse width) would be well understood by one skilled in the art and yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rae (US 20170176578 A1) in view of Ueno (US 20190265356 A1).
Claim 8: Rae teaches the distance measuring device according to Claim 1. Rae does not teach, but Ueno does teach, wherein the control unit detects abnormality of the light emitting unit in a case where the calculated value of a specific row or column among the calculated values of the light receiving elements for each row or column is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold ([0204] – storing sums of rows and [0177] – detecting peak intensities higher than threshold).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to use the pixel grouping, as taught by Ueno, with the device as taught by Rae (specifically instead of Rae’s teaching of creating histograms based on arrays ([0085]), because this is simply a rearrangement of parts (rearranging the pixels grouped together), which would yield predictable results (the way in which groupings of pixels affect the final histogram would be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARA CHILTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLARA G CHILTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645